G. R. No. 3476. July 25, 1907

On the 1st day of June, 1905, Fulgencio Contreras, attorney at law, appeared on  behalf of Dorotea Mendoza, and filed a complaint, which was subsequently amended on the 21st day of July following, alleging that she was the lawful owner of a parcel of land whereon  abaca and other such crops are raised, and situated at a place named Dayo, in the municipality of Lupi, Province  of Ambos  Camarines. The area of  the property is 16 hectares 46 ares and 47 centares, the same being bounded on  the north by the property of Casimiro Fulgencio  one of  defendants herein, on the east by that of Domingo Alinio, on the south by that of Casimiro de los Santos, now  owned by Severo de los Santos, and on the west by the Rio Grande.  The plaintiff had obtained property  by purchase from Rita Rueda, as appears in a public instrument executed on March 3,1903,registered in the Court of  Land Registration, under No. 33, second entry.
 
On January 23, of  the  same year, the defendants Casimiro Fulgencio and Jose  de  Asis,  unlawfully took possession of a portion of the northern part of the land, to the extent of 1 hectare 86 ares and 97 centares, as shown on the plan and description accompanying the complaint, thereby depriving the plaintiff thereof, claiming it as their own and damaging the plaintiff as alleged,  to  the extent of  400
pesos, Philippine currency.
 
The plaintiff therefore  asked that judgment be entered in her favor as against the defendants, for the ownership and possession of said portion of land described in paragraph 4  of  her  complaint,  and that the defendants  be further ordered to pay damages to the extent of 400 pesos,together  with  costs, and  such other  relief  as might  be deemed proper.
   
The defendants, each  of them, replied separately. On  July 29, of the same year, Oasimiro Fulgencio, through his attorney,  Leoncio  Imperial, denied each and all  of  the allegations contained in  the complaint with the exception of the statements made in  paragraphs 1 and 2 which were admitted.
 
As a special plea he then  alleged that, for the last twenty-two years, he had owned a parcel of land in Dayo, adjoining on the north  the land owned by the plaintiff, and that he had been  in continuous and peaceful possession  as the exclusive  owner  of the same; that he had donated it on January 14, of the same year, to his daughter Ramona Fulgencio, wife of the other defendant, Jose de Asis, ever since which time  the donee had  been in possession of the land as the owner thereof.
 
This defendant further alleged that the piece of land said to have been usurped, according to  the statement made in paragraph 4 of the complaint, formed an integral part of the above-described property bounded on the north by that supposed  to  belong to the  plaintiff; that  the plan  of the land said to belong to her is  inexact and incorrect, for which reason defendant moved that judgment be entered in his favor,  that the complaint be dismissed, the plaintiff enjoined from further interference, and that the exclusive ownership of the land in question  be adjudicated to Romana Fulgencio, with costs in his favor.
 
The other defendant, in a petition bearing the same date and  through the  same attorney, repeated the allegations made by Casimiro Fulgencio, adding as a special defense that he had no direct interest in this action.
 
Evidence having  been  produced by  both parties,  their exhibits were made of record after agreeing that defendant Jose de Asis, who furnished a bond of 400 pesos, be  appointed receiver of the land under litigation.
 
On November 25, 1905, judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, the court holding that the land claimed by her only reached the line formed by the two wells on the site of a certain fallen cotton tree.
   
The complaint  was  therefore  dismissed and plaintiff enjoined from further interference, and to pay costs of the proceedings.  Plaintiff took exception to the judgment and moved for a rehearing on the ground that the  decision was contrary to law and to the weight of evidence.  This motion was denied, whereupon plaintiff  filed  the present appeal.
   
Both parties have mutually acknowledged that they are owners and holders of neighboring and  adjoining land at Dayo,  in the municipality of Lupi, Province of  Ambos Camarines. This  action  of  recovery was brought by the plaintiff, because defendants had seized a portion of the land which  belonged to her,  situated on the north side of her property, to the  extent  of 1  hectare 86  ares and 97 centares.  If the fact of the  seizure be true, and the same be proven, it can not be doubted that the property must be restored to its lawful owner.
   
The property of each of the contending parties is shown by their respective title deeds as they appear on pages 137 to 142 and 153 and 154 of the record, with the difference that in those exhibited by the  plaintiff the area of her estate is expressed in the possessory information of June 5, 1895, and the  contract of sale dated March 11,  1903,  both of which are registered in the office of the  register of deeds. The defendant’s exhibit, however,  is a simple document of a private nature, and does not contain the least indication as to the area of the land sold for 10 pesos by Pedro Rogero to Casimiro  Fulgencio, one of the defendants in this case.
   
Therefore, even  if  the  title offered by the defendants were accepted as genuine, notwithstanding the exception taken by the plaintiff to its admission, for the purpose of determining with certainty and in accordance with the law whether or not the former had seized a portion of the land on the north side of the estate, to the extent alleged in the complaint, in addition to the evidence taken in the course of these proceedings, the area stated in the title deeds of the plaintiff must  also be considered, for the reason that they have not been expressly or duly objected to, and for the absolute failure to show that the area was  erroneous or false.
 
Article 1218 of the Civil Code provides that:

“Public instruments are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their existence, and of the date of the latter.
 
“They shall also be evidence against the contracting parties  and their legal representatives with regard to  the declarations the former may have made therein.”

The documents exhibited  by the plaintiff are in  the nature of a public instrument, and fully and satisfactorily show that Dorotea Mendoza had acquired  on  her own behalf, from the former owner, Rita Rueda, one parcel of land located at a place called Dayo, in the municipality of Lupi, Camarines, having an area of 16 hectares 46 ares and 47 centares, even against the defendants who in this case appear as the third  party, because they did not take part in said sale nor  were they subrogated to either the purchaser or the seller of’ the land.
 
The two successive entries of the plaintiff’s title deeds in the office of register of deeds must also be treated  as prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, such as the area of the land  to which they refer. (Sec. 315, Code of Civil Procedure.)  And  against the legal character and sufficiency of  the plaintiff’s titles, the private document exhibited  by the defendants which, as already noted, does  not state the area of  the land, can  under no circumstances prevail.
 
It is therefore unquestionable that the land of  the plaintiff, Mendoza, consists of the parcel stated in the  complaint and shown in the title deeds, but that when the survey was made by the surveyor who drew out the plan marked “Exhibit D,” it was found that the land was short by 1 hectare 86 ares and  97 centares, which is the portion seized by the defendants, as it has been shown in these proceedings.
 
The following are facts ivhich appear of record  as having been fully proved: That when Rita Rueda succeeded her deceased mother,  Tomasa Pulgencio, in the ownership and possession of the said estate, the management of the same was taken charge of by Casimiro Fulgencio, and later on by Jose Fulgencio,  both of them brothers of the deceased and uncles to Rueda, who was then absent from Camarines and living in Cavite, she having but once or twice visited the estate during the thirteen years in which her uncles had been managing the same; that undoubtedly, with the knowledge and consent of Jose, the latter’s brother  Casimiro widened his own land on the side adjoining the land of their niece,  Rueda, at her expense,  and the extended estate  was  subsequently donated by  Casimiro  to his daughter Ramona,  wife of  the other defendant Jose de Asis, who in his turn increased the extension, by three times removing the fence which served as dividing line between the two estates, invading the land of the plaintiff, and cutting down the trees  thereon; that the property of the plaintiff is bounded on the south by the land belonging to Severo de los Santos, and on the west by the Rio Grande.
 
If it were true that the dividing line between the two adjoining lands was indicated by the shallow wells which according to some witnesses for the defendants were located between the two estates, it would not have been necessary for  defendant Asis to have cut down the bonga trees that were planted on the dividing line nor  could  he have removed the fence and in-closed therewith the plaintiff’s land which he claims as his own.
 
It can not be doubted that the aforementioned wells were not the original and true dividing line of the estates, and that those opened within the land  of the plaintiff, and at both ends of the line of the fence on the site where it had for the third time  been transferred, had been dug after the seizure of the land,  and its incorporation into the defendant Casimiro’s  estate for the purpose of feigning lawful possession, to the detriment of the plaintiff, taking advantage of the fact that the contract of sale marked “Exhibit H,”  page 154, does not describe the area of the land to which it refers.
 
Aside from the fact that the two wells alleged to indicate the line separating  the land of the plaintiff from that of the defendants are  not shown  in  the  title  deeds of the former, nor in the private document appearing at page 154 and offered in evidence by the defendants, they do not constitute the natural boundary between the two estates. The fact that the plaintiff’s land is bounded on the south by the Rio Grande de Lupi is an item which further corroborates the certainty of the seizure and incorporation of the alleged parcel of land.
 
The two surveys made by a surveyor, and against which an  objection was  raised by the defendant Jose de Asis every time that the survey was attempted of that portion of land which he himself had  seized, show that the house belonging to Asis and his wife was erected on land belonging  to plaintiff, and in order to  conceal their unlawful occupation trees were cut down by them and the fence was three times moved upon the land of the plaintiff.

It is inferred from the foregoing considerations that the conclusions established in the judgment appealed from are manifestly contrary to the weight of the varied sort of evidence submitted in the case.   The evidence being duly considered, it is  clear that the land claimed in the complaint  was  unlawfully occupied under the circumstances and manner as aforesaid, no proof having been furnished by the defendants that the  land  purchased  by Casimiro and now occupied by Jose de Asis extended as far as the site  where a fence inclosing the land  had been removed and put up for the third  time.
 
In order to determine the extent and  the limits of the two  estates in question, though it may only  be on the side at which they adjoin each other, it is necessary to abide by  the  respective title deeds.  Only in the absence of sufficient title can the mere possession of adjoining owners prevail.  (Art. 385, Civil Code.)
 
The plaintiff is in the possession of sufficient documents of title in which the area of superficial extent of her land is stated, together  with the boundaries thereof, and it has been shown  by the testimony of witnesses and by the certificate of an expert that a portion of the said land to the extent of 1 hectare 86 ares and 97 centares was seized and added to the land  to which the private document at page 154  refers.  This latter document, which does  not  state the area or extent of the estate, and has not the character of a public instrument, can not prevail  nor can it counteract the effect of the plaintiff’s title which must not be ignored in the decision of the case.
 
In the absence of proof as to the loss or damage caused to the plaintiff by  reason of the unlawful detention, it is not expedient to  decide  whether or  not the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity.
 
And finally, taking into  consideration  the fact that at the time when the complaint was filed  no proof existed that the donation which the defendant Casimiro Fulgencio alleged he had made of his land to his daughter Ramona had been perfected, or that the same was made in accordance with  the provisions of articles  618 and 623 of the Civil Code, and that Jose Asis and his  wife now occupy the parcel  of land in question without having offered any legal objection to the action  in both  instances,  the court may now  finally decide the question pending between the parties.
 
For  the foregoing reasons we  are  of  opinion that the judgment of the court below should be reversed, and Casimiro Fulgencio  and  Jose de Asis are hereby directed to restore to  Dorotea Mendoza the land detained  by them having an area  of 1 hectare 86 ares  and 97 centares, in accordance with her title  deeds.  No costs will be allowed to either  party in either instance, and  no provision is made regarding the claim for damages.   So ordered.

Arellano, C J., Torres Johnson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Willarad. J., concurs in the results.